|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 25, 2015 7:15:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allthingsoccer on Aug 25, 2015 8:26:20 GMT -5
Thanks for posting...
My question is the season start date in ref to chart above. This year is 2015/16. So next year the U12 age group will be 04's?
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 25, 2015 8:32:01 GMT -5
thats how I see it. I thought the 04s would be u13s next year, guess we were wrong!
|
|
|
Post by nishnolz93 on Aug 25, 2015 8:34:28 GMT -5
Yep, I've been thinking that 04s would be 13s myself.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Aug 25, 2015 9:38:28 GMT -5
I'm very surprised... though it's hard to find published anywhere, it does seem this is how it's done internationally. It seems to be based on the premise that at the instant the year 2016 begins, all 2004-born kids will be 11 years old.
So using the logic we've seen, when the first game of the 2016-2017 season happens (let's say that is September 10, 2016), any child born January 1, 2004 through September 9, 2004 will be 12 and will be playing down with 11 year olds.
That can't possibly be good for their development, can it? They should only play up, not down.
In case it isn't obvious, end of sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 11:15:25 GMT -5
A thousand pardons if this question has already been answered. If there is a U14 team right now that is R3PL, but the U15s and U13s are not, which group of current U14 kids gets the R3Pl spot next year? And which kids get relegated to a lower division team?
But at least we'll be doing it the same way as 208 other countries. Because I for one stand in solidarity with Ivory Coast and Uzbekistan in ALL things!
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Aug 25, 2015 11:18:54 GMT -5
thats how I see it. I thought the 04s would be u13s next year, guess we were wrong! I understood but everyone that thought like you caused me to doubt myself about this plenty of times, hah =) The grid makes a lot of sense, I did something like that in excel a few weeks ago to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 11:28:47 GMT -5
Also I like the rationale behind the squad size changes. Fewer players means more touches on the ball. OK, sounds good right? So we're going to change our current 3v3 squad for little kids and change it to 4v4. Change the current 6v6 to 7v7. Change the current 8v8 and change it to 9v9. All because fewer players is good. So we're going to do the exact opposite and add another player.
Plus I like the 3 'periods' of 15 minutes at U8. Because we're developing kids to compete for the Stanley Cup!
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 11:42:26 GMT -5
If you read the whole fact sheet, there are more changes as well. No keeper until U9. U9 and U10 have a new "build out line" and no punting.
14 kids per team for a 7v7 squad. Wow. We had 8 boys rostered for 6v6 games. Lots of playing time for all. Now there will be some serious sitting. But I guess we need to develop bench-sitters too. Because, you know, DEVELOPMENT!
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 25, 2015 11:45:21 GMT -5
If they mandate team sizes, this will be fewer players for most ages. I sure hope the team size regs don't get run over like the present recommendations.
The team sizes (I presume) are also based on potential formations.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 12:12:18 GMT -5
This is an increase in players for most ages from current:
Age Current Future U5 3v3 n/a (assumes 4v4) U6 3v3 4v4 U7 5v5 4v4 U8 5v5 4v4 U9 6v6 7v7 U10 6v6 7v7 U11 8v8 9v9 U12 8v8 9v9
Also, playing time is decreased as well. U7 going from 4x12 quarters to 4x8 quarters. U8 going from 4x12 quarters to this weird 3x15 periods. Plus the drastic increase in roster sizes. 8-9 per team for U9 going to 14 per team.
Less playing time + more players per team = less touches on the ball per player.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 25, 2015 12:19:17 GMT -5
no question 14 kids on a 7v7 team is too many. Whats interesting to me is that both 9v9 formations are with 3 defenders. ODP was pushing 2 backs in 8v8 vs a 3 backs.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 12:28:46 GMT -5
I'm no soccer expert. I am willing to be convinced that a different formation is better or 9v9 is better than 8v8, etc. But don't tell me that the goal is to have more touches on the ball by introducing small sided games while at the same time cut the minutes per game and add more players to the field. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night!
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 25, 2015 12:49:23 GMT -5
I'm not comparing the new vs. old team size mandates, I'm comparing new vs. reality.
The old mandates were being ignored, young kids playing 11v11 as young as U11...
The point, to me, seems like they're trying to make it less than 11. Perhaps even compromising. I have read that 7v7 and 9v9 are more common stepping stones for youth players in other parts of the world.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 14:04:06 GMT -5
I'm not comparing the new vs. old team size mandates, I'm comparing new vs. reality. The old mandates were being ignored, young kids playing 11v11 as young as U11... The point, to me, seems like they're trying to make it less than 11. Perhaps even compromising. I have read that 7v7 and 9v9 are more common stepping stones for youth players in other parts of the world. I'm with you about teams wanting to start playing 11v11 sooner and sooner, I hear that is a growing concern. Our club didn't have that particular problem. They even put on a parent education session for rising U12 parents as to the benefits of 8v8 and why only a few teams would get minimal games in at 11v11, and only towards the spring. But the bigger issue is the disconnect between the reason given and the actions taken. They are positing an argument that smaller teams make for better development: US Youth Soccer director of coaching education and long-time advocate of Small-Sided Games, Sam Snow acknowledged, “Since the mid 1980’s US Youth Soccer has been an advocate for Small-Sided Games. Why? The many benefits to the players and even to novice coaches are clear. With fewer players on the field making quick tactical decisions is easier. Players are in the vicinity of the ball more often which engages them in all four components of the game. The players are realistically exposed to the principles of play frequently. In short, Small-Sided Games will accelerate the development of American soccer players.”
No argument from me there. But their actions were to 1) increase players on the field for most age groups, 2) add more players per team roster and 3) reduce the total minutes per game. All of this will result in fewer touches on the ball per player. Does.Not.Make.Sense.
|
|
|
Post by dreaddy on Aug 25, 2015 16:10:46 GMT -5
History, History, History.
I guess I've been around too long! I'm not getting very excited about these changes because I've been through changes before, and it's not the end of the world. I don't know much historically about the U8's and younger, but I can tell you a few things about U10's and up. U10's used to play 9v9, U12's and older played 11v11. The cutoff was January 1, and it sure made the naming of teams and figuring out what age group your kid was easy!
First US Youth Soccer made the change to August 1st - to match the 208 other countries who did it that way at the time! FIFA changed the cutoff to January 1st. US Youth Soccer did not change, thus we are at the current situation in that respect.
US Youth Soccer made recommendations to play the way we do now. 3v3 at U6, 4v4 at U8 with no keeper, 6v6 at U10 and 8v8 at U12. Note - this was from US YOUTH Soccer, not US Soccer. If all of our clubs had stuck with US Youth's recommendations, US Soccer would probably not have gotten so interested in youth development. The current changes are coming from US SOCCER, not US Youth Soccer. They are two very different organizations. US Soccer's mandate is based on what's worked internationally. Their people probably looked at what they saw happening at clubs, assuming that was the norm instead of what US Youth was advising clubs to do. Due to this we get more players on the field than we have now thanks to the clubs (and states) who wanted the competitive edge by rushing their kids toward 11v11 as quickly as possible.
As some have pointed out, the new rules put more players on the field than the old rules. But when you consider that the vast majority (we in Georgia are a minority in that we followed the old advisory for the most part) were not following the old rules anyway, you can begin to see where US Soccer is coming from.
With all of this, we are still going to be subject to the competitive parent who wants to see his little tyke win NOW and is not interested in waiting for development to take place before he can start hauling trophies home. As long as we have a large number of parents of this mindset and they are paying the bills, allowing time for young players to develop is doomed, no matter what the rules are.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 8:17:27 GMT -5
I'm very surprised... though it's hard to find published anywhere, it does seem this is how it's done internationally. It seems to be based on the premise that at the instant the year 2016 begins, all 2004-born kids will be 11 years old. So using the logic we've seen, when the first game of the 2016-2017 season happens (let's say that is September 10, 2016), any child born January 1, 2004 through September 9, 2004 will be 12 and will be playing down with 11 year olds. That can't possibly be good for their development, can it? They should only play up, not down. Isnt that the same thing that happens now just with diff dates?? Take U14 for example, you have kids born in '01 and '02. The '01's are about to be 14 so in essence they are playing down with 13 yr olds. If this is such a problem for some, then just play up.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 8:21:19 GMT -5
A thousand pardons if this question has already been answered. If there is a U14 team right now that is R3PL, but the U15s and U13s are not, which group of current U14 kids gets the R3Pl spot next year? And which kids get relegated to a lower division team?
But at least we'll be doing it the same way as 208 other countries. Because I for one stand in solidarity with Ivory Coast and Uzbekistan in ALL things! You're worrying about this way too much. Your r3pl season begins in a couple of weeks...concentrate on doing good in it and not who gets to keep what. More than likely it will go to the rising u15 group since its U14 now...you can have your daughter play up if you want to keep her in that team, not a big deal
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 26, 2015 8:42:08 GMT -5
A thousand pardons if this question has already been answered. If there is a U14 team right now that is R3PL, but the U15s and U13s are not, which group of current U14 kids gets the R3Pl spot next year? And which kids get relegated to a lower division team?
But at least we'll be doing it the same way as 208 other countries. Because I for one stand in solidarity with Ivory Coast and Uzbekistan in ALL things! You're worrying about this way too much. Your r3pl season begins in a couple of weeks...concentrate on doing good in it and not who gets to keep what. More than likely it will go to the rising u15 group since its U14 now...you can have your daughter play up if you want to keep her in that team, not a big deal Playing up could be an option yes, but maybe the coach wants to use the older players vs the younger ones, it ultimately is not the players decision in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 8:45:26 GMT -5
You're worrying about this way too much. Your r3pl season begins in a couple of weeks...concentrate on doing good in it and not who gets to keep what. More than likely it will go to the rising u15 group since its U14 now...you can have your daughter play up if you want to keep her in that team, not a big deal Playing up could be an option yes, but maybe the coach wants to use the older players vs the younger ones, it ultimately is not the players decision in most cases. But it is.... Plenty of clubs out there, if you dont like what your current club is doing, I'm pretty sure you can find another club that will let you. It all comes down to each kid, if your kid is good then the option of playing up is there. If your kid isnt that good then playing age appropriate and flourishing is a better option for them. Playing up is not the solution for every kid.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Aug 26, 2015 9:11:45 GMT -5
I'm very surprised... though it's hard to find published anywhere, it does seem this is how it's done internationally. It seems to be based on the premise that at the instant the year 2016 begins, all 2004-born kids will be 11 years old. So using the logic we've seen, when the first game of the 2016-2017 season happens (let's say that is September 10, 2016), any child born January 1, 2004 through September 9, 2004 will be 12 and will be playing down with 11 year olds. That can't possibly be good for their development, can it? They should only play up, not down. Isnt that the same thing that happens now just with diff dates?? Take U14 for example, you have kids born in '01 and '02. The '01's are about to be 14 so in essence they are playing down with 13 yr olds. If this is such a problem for some, then just play up. Somehow it's edited out of my quote above, but my original post included: "In case it isn't obvious, end of sarcasm" So yes, that is exactly the same thing that happens now... I wish USSF wouldn't try to justify the change with similar false conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 26, 2015 9:17:13 GMT -5
I like the concept of the build it line for the younger ages. However, will be one more thing refs and ARs will have to worry about and not allowing goals because a kid crossed the line early.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 26, 2015 10:25:09 GMT -5
A thousand pardons if this question has already been answered. If there is a U14 team right now that is R3PL, but the U15s and U13s are not, which group of current U14 kids gets the R3Pl spot next year? And which kids get relegated to a lower division team?
But at least we'll be doing it the same way as 208 other countries. Because I for one stand in solidarity with Ivory Coast and Uzbekistan in ALL things! You're worrying about this way too much. Your r3pl season begins in a couple of weeks...concentrate on doing good in it and not who gets to keep what. More than likely it will go to the rising u15 group since its U14 now...you can have your daughter play up if you want to keep her in that team, not a big deal Well as a parent I get to worry about things, sometimes too much! The player doesn't yet know about any of this. We figure it may change between now and then. No need to upset the apple cart. The player is TOTALLY focused on the upcoming season. Really excited. Still a little odd because we have just the four games scheduled so far, but we understand the other three are hopefully still in the works. As far as the R3PL slot going to the group above, that is what I am afraid of. At our club at least, it is not the player's nor parent's decision to play up. It is the coach's and club's (or more specifically they get the final say-so). If she does try to stay on that team she will be competing for spots with girls a year older than her. She may or may not make it. If she doesn't make it she will be on the next younger team, which is currently an Athena A team. To say it's not a big deal to get relegated from R3PL to Athena A is understating it a bit. Just ask Hull City, Burnley and Queens Park Rangers.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 10:29:09 GMT -5
You're worrying about this way too much. Your r3pl season begins in a couple of weeks...concentrate on doing good in it and not who gets to keep what. More than likely it will go to the rising u15 group since its U14 now...you can have your daughter play up if you want to keep her in that team, not a big deal Well as a parent I get to worry about things, sometimes too much! The player doesn't yet know about any of this. We figure it may change between now and then. No need to upset the apple cart. The player is TOTALLY focused on the upcoming season. Really excited. Still a little odd because we have just the four games scheduled so far, but we understand the other three are hopefully still in the works. As far as the R3PL slot going to the group above, that is what I am afraid of. At our club at least, it is not the player's nor parent's decision to play up. It is the coach's and club's (or more specifically they get the final say-so). If she does try to stay on that team she will be competing for spots with girls a year older than her. She may or may not make it. If she doesn't make it she will be on the next younger team, which is currently an Athena A team. To say it's not a big deal to get relegated from R3PL to Athena A is understating it a bit. Just ask Hull City, Burnley and Queens Park Rangers. If playing Athena A at your current club winds up being the only option for her, you can always change clubs. Yes the club can decide what happens to your kid in THEIR club but not in every club. Plenty of options out there and diff levels of competition. Good luck with the season I told my kid about the changes...she didnt seem concerned
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 10:30:01 GMT -5
I like the concept of the build it line for the younger ages. However, will be one more thing refs and ARs will have to worry about and not allowing goals because a kid crossed the line early. Will they paint another line for this or will this be an imaginary line...and yet another reason for parents to complain
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 26, 2015 10:32:09 GMT -5
Playing up could be an option yes, but maybe the coach wants to use the older players vs the younger ones, it ultimately is not the players decision in most cases. But it is.... Plenty of clubs out there, if you dont like what your current club is doing, I'm pretty sure you can find another club that will let you. It all comes down to each kid, if your kid is good then the option of playing up is there. If your kid isnt that good then playing age appropriate and flourishing is a better option for them. Playing up is not the solution for every kid. That's the point. I love what our club is doing. First R3PL team in club history. I shouldn't have to leave the club and find something else just because of a rule change made at some disconnected headquarters. I know there are a lot of folks out there that are comfortable with changing clubs, but I am not really in to that. For one, it's 45 min one way in traffic to either GSA or AFU. Plus I've got two other kids playing soccer and other sports nearby.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 26, 2015 10:35:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 10:35:53 GMT -5
But it is.... Plenty of clubs out there, if you dont like what your current club is doing, I'm pretty sure you can find another club that will let you. It all comes down to each kid, if your kid is good then the option of playing up is there. If your kid isnt that good then playing age appropriate and flourishing is a better option for them. Playing up is not the solution for every kid. That's the point. I love what our club is doing. First R3PL team in club history. I shouldn't have to leave the club and find something else just because of a rule change made at some disconnected headquarters. I know there are a lot of folks out there that are comfortable with changing clubs, but I am not really in to that. For one, it's 45 min one way in traffic to either GSA or AFU. Plus I've got two other kids playing soccer and other sports nearby. I'm not telling you to change clubs, Im just saying that you need to do whats best for your daughter's development. Only you can decide that. I feel you about the drive and I'm not a fan of changing clubs either
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 26, 2015 10:39:52 GMT -5
build out line will be actually line on the field. Love the idea, but building out can be more of a challenge when teams don't have the backs who are comfortable receiving the ball under pressure etc. Yes, they will learn etc, but teams will sit back and literally pounce on teams! But isnt that the point of the build out line? no pressure? I dont see it as a benefit, once the ball is in play its the same thing, the only difference is that they will be a little further back
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 26, 2015 10:48:35 GMT -5
build out line will be actually line on the field. Love the idea, but building out can be more of a challenge when teams don't have the backs who are comfortable receiving the ball under pressure etc. Yes, they will learn etc, but teams will sit back and literally pounce on teams! I could get behind this change. In Academy we had a coach who was big into having the keeper play it to the backs rather than just boot it. But other teams would pressure the backs so much that there was no way to do it right. We had a lot of easy goals scored on us becuase we were trying to develop the keeper - back relationship. Eventually you saw less and less of it. Then two strong keepers could literally punt it to each other back and forth like tennis. Terrible soccer.
|
|